Carroll: Give Me a Playoff or Give Me Death Another Shot at Stanford, Please.

by SMQ on Nov 29, 2007 4:39 PM EST in News Comment 21 comments

Regular readers know that if SMQ has a loosely-defined crusade to justify lobbing virtual Molotov cocktails, it is for a playoff and against the BCS cartel, against which no opportunities should be wasted, no allies turned away. So, in the spirit of la Résistance, welcome to the fight, Pete Carroll:

It looks to me like the BCS system is one that, at the end of the process, designates the team that had the most attractive season based on who they played and what their record is at the end and all of those things that you add up. In my opinion it does not have anything to say about who the best team is at the end of the year, meaning that, who would be the team that would win if you had a playoff, and who's playing the best football?

I'm not saying that's us. But there are teams out there - and we'e one of them - that could arguably be able to beat any team in America when the time comes...We're playing the game to see how far we go and how far we can take it.
[...]
The only way you get it perfect is to play 'em off...There's a lot of time in between these bowl games, you know, and when the season ends. there's a lot of time we wait to play games. There's a few weeks in there now. We could do some playing there, still play some games and then have bowl games.
- - -
(HT: L.A. Times "All Things Trojan" blogger Adam Rose)

Carroll reacts to the BCS: Give ‘em hell, Pete.
- - -

Carroll is a little scattershot here, off the cuff (you would be too, at a short press conference), but touches very briefly on a couple issues we've churned over here for a couple years now, I guess, namely the idea that the "best team" is only the one that survives a bracket with clear, onjective on-field criteria (win and advance) that puts teams on the same plane without arbitrarily hashing out schedule strength and other trivia that could be "settled on the field," to use the cliché. The BCS, because it's comparing lab tests of the chemical makeup of one apple to lab tests of another apple to determine the best one instead of actually tasting them, has no choice but to base its decisions on "all those things that you add up," which is why as long as polls are a factor I will always argue a team is its resumé, and that's all it is; the "most attractive season" is the only possible criteria. Not so the playoff: the resumé gets you in the door, but on level ground, a championship can't be voted. It has to be won. A playoff appeals to Carroll's ingrained competitiveness, and I think he's right.

Mergz at Saurian Sagacity is also right that the Trojans are not playing the best football in America at the moment, having won close games over mediocre opponents Oregon State and Cal before finally, satisfactorily pounding suspicious frontrunner Arizona State last week, and any projections of the grandeur all foresaw at the beginning of the season to majestically unfurl at the end (apparently Kirk Herbstreit falls into this category) are severely premature, and wholly inadequate for atoning for SC's earlier defeat to Stanford, which is every bit as damaging now as it looked at the time. If there is a solid argument against a tournament, that's it: should a team that somehow managed to lose to the last place team in its conference have a chance to re-emerge as a national champion? Pete Carroll obviously thinks so, and if push comes to shove, so do I, given the current alternative. Plowing through the rest of the conference and then a top-tier three or four-game playoff bracket is a hell of an act of penance.

When he starts talking about being "able to beat any team in America when the time comes," though, he should remember that the ability to beat any team and the ability to lose to any team are not mutually exclusive. "The best" is a fleeting concept.

0 recs | Comment 21 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Playoff

What is disingenuous about a playoff is that people pretend the champion is by definition the best team. Maybe it is, but they are not automatically equivalent. If everyone agrees that they'd rather have a champion, that's fine, but I think a poll in which people vote logically is more likely to indentify the actual best team.

by FactPig on Nov 29, 2007 7:10 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Pretend?

I think by definition the winner of a playoff is the best team, if the field doesn't have 60 teams.

There is no "best team." Teams play at a different level week-to-week - what's the "real team"? There's nothing inherent; it's all cumulative, a destination. You can't identify what doesn't exist.

by SMQ on Nov 29, 2007 7:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

why even play the game?

You could just look at everyone stats and extrapolate, if everyone's just making a considered judgment. If results don't count, why bother to play? At some point, if you don't think that the winner is actually the winner, what's the point?

by DC Trojan on Nov 29, 2007 7:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

The games speak for themselves.

by SMQ on Nov 29, 2007 10:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

There lies the flaw in your plan

You assume pollsters vote logically. As evidenced by Georgia and VT being ahead of LSU, this is clearly not the case.

by SpartanDan on Nov 29, 2007 11:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

polls and assholes

Only the coaches poll and half of the computers show the idiocy of putting V. Tech ahead of LSU. And, really, the computers' hands have been tied by the humans refusing to allow any level of margin of victory into their computations. Untie the computers' hands and they'll do a better job. There should be a cap on margin, such as 14 or 20 points, to prevent against running up scores.

I'm ok with Georgia being ahead of LSU, for the time being at least. I view it as a state of purgatory for LSU. Georgia's clearly the hotter team. But if LSU beats Tennessee and brings home the SEC title, keeping Georgia ahead of the Tigers would be just about as idiotic as the V. Tech - LSU flip.

by crepuscular on Nov 30, 2007 8:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I like college footballs current system

for one reason. Every game is a playoff game because there is something on the line every week. It is the only sport that is like that and I do not want to change that aspect of it. Do I think the system is flawed? Of course. You could make that case for about any system. Look at March Madness, sure their is a playoff system but it is far from perfect. Even if you are 33-1 for the regular season if you have one bad game in the tournament and get upset it wouldn't be the case of that the other team was better than you but playing better at the right time.
There is no way College Football will ever change the BCS system because of all the money from the sponsors. I think that NCAA should make a rule that BCS schools must only play other BCS schools in their out of conference schedule. It would still be flawed but at least pollers would get a better idea of the elite conferences.

by Zach on Nov 30, 2007 8:57 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

There is no way College Football will ever change

I don't agree. Unless the BCS evolves into a playoff itself - which I think it will - the current structure is doomed. But a playoff by any other name will smell as sweet.

The issue is not money, and Carroll is hardly the only high profile advocate of a playoff. There was reportedly more money "on the table" for Bernie Machen's hypothetical playoff proposal at the SEC meetings in the spring than the five BCS games pay out now, and that was just a half-assed quasi-presentation to get the idea in the right people's heads. The Big Ten and Pac Ten will probably hold out longer than the other conferences - again - but it's on its way. "Plus One" when the current BCS contract is rearranged in a few years, and we'll be off from there.

by SMQ on Nov 30, 2007 9:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not every game is a playoff game

But, contrary to what playoff naysayers would want us to believe, more regular season games would be "playoff" games under any number of playoff scenarios. Just take last week's USC - Arizona St. game as an example. Under the current non-playoff system, that game had no impact on the national title picture. Under just about any playoff system, that regular season game would be more of a "playoff" game. You get more of these regular season "playoff" games than you lose when the current BCS system is dropped.

by crepuscular on Nov 30, 2007 11:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

USC-ASU

I disagree with that. It may not have been a "playoff game" for USC, but it was for Arizona State. If they had won, they would have been in this week's BCS title game discussion (where exactly I don't know, but certainly ahead of every 2-loss team).

USC had their "playoff game." It was against Oregon with Dixon and they lost.

Under what playoff system would that game have had an impact that it didn't have last week?

by DoubleB on Nov 30, 2007 12:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

re:

I think you're partly right about that. Under most playoff formats that game would have been a "playoff" game for both teams. The only reason it turned out to be a "playoff" game for Arizona St. was because other teams ahead of them lost.

by crepuscular on Nov 30, 2007 12:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

another example

Taking a regular season "playoff" example to the extreme, have a look at 2004. Since USC and Texas we're pretty much 1-2 all year long, only regular season games involving them could be considered "playoff" games. Not a single game the other undefeated team, Auburn, played qualified as a playoff game. There would have been a lot more regular season playoff games that year and probably any year with a well-conceived real playoff in place.

by crepuscular on Nov 30, 2007 3:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If every game is a playoff....

Then why is West Virginia still alive after losing to South Florida? Why is Ohio State still alive after losing (at home) to Illinois? What about Missouri's loss to Oklahoma? (Well, of the 3, only Missouri has a chance to get revenge). Two of those teams are going to play for the MNC, and we're going to blisfully ignore the fact that they proved they were not better than some team on the their schedule. And then their is the issue of Hawaii. If the regular season really WAS a playoff, it would be impossible to not be the "champion" if you didn't lose a game.

by dethwing on Nov 30, 2007 9:32 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Reasoning by analogy

I know that introducing soccer into this discussion will be about as popular as farting in church, but I think it's instructive.

For those who may not be familiar: there are basically three structures to soccer competitions:

Domestic league titles: whichever club finishes the season with the most points (for wins and ties) wins the league title. Mimics conference play for college football, especially in the importance of dropping a minimal number of points / games.
Domestic association cup competitions: single elimination tournaments encompassing teams from multiple tiers: lose and you're done.
International Competitions: teams are seeded into groups for an opening round; the top two teams from each group proceed into single-elimination rounds until you get a winner. Qualification for tournaments is through a similar group-play structure.

Each of these approaches give you a champion, but only one of them is really applicable to finding one in college football.

During the regular season, conference play is akin to soccer league play: any given loss doesn't eliminate you from post-conference goodies, but it reduces the odds you'll get somewhere good. So we have that already within the conferences, followed by a beauty pageant that doesn't seem to satisfy anyone except the partisans of the 2 teams in the MNC game.

If you really wanted a vicious, war of all against all national championship, you would implement the association cup approach - seed all Div IA or whatever it is we're calling them teams in, and let the games go as they will. However, no-one's going to go for that. People aren't going to give up traditional conference play, coaches wouldn't like having less than a week to plan, fans and alumni wouldn't like the unpredictable travel schedule.

Which is why I think the international competition approach is the one that would best translate to college football and produce a proper national champion - you'd have the importance of conference play teeing up who gets into the playoff - beat your peers (or all but one of them), and you're in - and then work the playoff until you have a champion.

It's certainly possible that your team could have one or two bad games and still qualify for a play-off, just as it's possible that they could have a couple of good games and not qualify. For example: I just recovered from the end of qualification for Euro 2008 where Scotland narrowly missed out - Italy and France qualified.

Now in group play, Scotland beat France twice, which is at least as big a deal as Stanford beating USC, but they didn't otherwise win enough. The results don't lie. If you applied some of the thinking articulated in this thread, someone would be making the argument that Scotland had shown strong by beating France, that they were without 4 of their best players when they lost to 3 teenagers and a toddler playing for Georgia in Tbilisi, and they should be qualified because of the quality wins. But they shouldn't: they didn't win.

If I wanted to watch games where effort, style, and offsetting calamitous misfortune were considerations used to counter-balance the results, I'd sign my children up for kiddie soccer or whatever upper-middle-class protective wrapper activity is in season in my neighbourhood. I don't want that. I want to see competitive championships where winning is what allows you to continue playing until you're out or you've won the lot.

Doesn't mean I'm going to get it, but there you go.

by DC Trojan on Nov 30, 2007 1:07 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Continuing the analogy

Let's add promotion and regulation to really up the stakes! I'm just kidding, of course. But that's one of the main reasons why I'm more of a fan of real European domestic league football than any of the stuff we've got on these shores.

And I was really relieved that Italy made it through. I wouldn't have minded Scotland going through at the expense of France.

by crepuscular on Nov 30, 2007 1:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Why not?

I'd rather have Northern Iowa in the Big Ten this year than Minnesota. (Especially since MSU didn't get the benefit of a free win by playing them this year.)

by SpartanDan on Nov 30, 2007 2:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

good point

I'd like to "relegate" Florida out of the SEC but I guess that would go against the spirit of the system.

by crepuscular on Nov 30, 2007 3:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Me neither

I'd have been perfectly happy to see France fall by the wayside as well for that tournament, but it was not to be. You'd have thought that the ACC or the Pac 10 had provided the referees for Scotland's last game against Italy, but that's no excuse for them not winning.

I actually think promotion and relegation would be a good thing. The Boise States of the game have to live with the sneering about "well you only win in the WAC" - promotion and relegation would make for a better measure of who's really good. But that's a step too far and too foreign for college football.

by DC Trojan on Nov 30, 2007 3:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

RE: Analogy

I think there's a lot of truth in the soccer analogy. Just because a limited playoff exists (ie, not nearly as big as NCAA basketball) doesn't mean that the regular season becomes irrelevant. Limiting the playoff to Big 6 conference champions, 1 mid-major/ND and 1 at-large from the big 6/ND gives you eight very good teams that fought tooth-and-nail to get into the play-off. All of a sudden this year's SEC and ACC title games become a lot more interesting. Plus, OOC would definitely be huge in determining seeding. And as long as a team takes care of business on it's schedule, it earns the right to play for a national title.

It's not about giving everyone a shot in a play-off; it's about rewarding the teams who won against the schedule with which they were presented.

by cornball on Nov 30, 2007 2:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The plus-one could be as bad as what we have.

Maybe not "bad," but "problematic" couldn't fit in the subject line. My big question about plus-one would be organization--are you essentially creating a 4-team playoff by seeding the top four teams, or are you just having 4 unseeded BCS games and giving the two best winners a shot? What works best for 2004 (USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, and Utah all unbeaten) probably wouldn't be best for 2005 (unbeaten Texas/USC, 1-loss Penn State, 2-loss Ohio State or LSU).

The BCS isn't willing or clever enough to adapt on the fly. I imagine that, once we get to those conundrums, it'll be a much shorter trip to a full "BCS-sponsored" playoff than it was to get that first extra game. Plus-one is probably effective 2 of 3 times versus the BCS's 1 of 3 times, and hopefully it'll be a quick stop on the way to the good stuff.

by HooShotYa on Nov 30, 2007 4:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I am on record

In vehemnt opposition of the "plus one," which I think makes no sense whatsoever. I only accept it as the inevitable bridge from the current system to an actual playoff. Power brokers actually seem open to the possibility of a plus one. So we endure it for a while and then move on.

But as a permanent solution, absolutely not. Baby steps.

by SMQ on Nov 30, 2007 6:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sunday Morning Quarterback: An SB Nation Community

Network Bar

Sunday Morning Quarterback -

Second guessing college kids under extreme duress since 2005.